5. a. If I were the prosecutor, I would charge him 20 counts of qualified theft.

The elements of
qualified theft are: taking of personal property of another, without the consent of the latter,
with intent to gain and without violence and intimidation. The presence of grave abuse of
confidence on the part of X makes the theft qualified because Z is the treasurer of the Y
Corporation where X is working. Being a corporate officer of the corporation makes him one of
the employers of X. In this case, making the property accessible to X, the employee, is an
indication that Z has confidence on him that he will not steal the cash. Yet, X abused such
confidence by stealing it. 20 counts because the commission of different qualified theft is based
on different impulses of the offender. It is not a continuing crime because in continuing crime it
is a single crime constituting series of acts arising in single occasion. Here there are different
occasions.

b. He can be punished for the 20 counts of qualified theft and there can be 20 sentence s,
However, the service of sentence should follow the Three Fold Rule in which the service of
sentence shall be successive but the sentence will not exceed the three fold of the maximum
penalty provided that the maximum penalty will not excced 40 years.

c. X is not entitled to the benefits of probation since it is certain that the maximum term of
imprisonment will be 6 years and more. One of the disqualifications in the application of the
Probation Law is that the sentence to be served has a maximum term of imprisonment of more
than 6 years.

6. The argument of X is untenable. Here, X, the mayor, has committed falsification by making
untruthful statements on the certification that Y, her son, is not related to her within the third
civil degree of consanguinity where in fact and in truth, Y is her son. She cannot argue that the
appointee is not required to disclose her relationship and she was in good faith when she
revoked the appointment. The fact that the she made untruthful statements in the certificate
makes her liable of falsification because it is an implied obligation upon her to appoint persons
who are qualified to the positions. By appointing her son, she committed unlawful appointment
through falsification of public document.

7. a. As to judge X, the crime committed is qualified direct assault with less serious physical
injuries. Direct assault is committed by any person who shall attack public officer who is a
person in authority or his agents during his performance of his public functions or in connection
of his duties without a public uprising. Here, the judge, who is a person in authority because he
is vested with jurisdiction, was attacked by Z, by reason of the public duty of the judge when
the judge convicted Z in a case. Since the judge was hospitalized for 30 days, the crime of direct
assault will be complexed by less serious physical injuries. The single attack of Z resulted to
different felonies. The direct assault will be qualified upon laying of hands, whether serious or
simple, upon the person in authority. The crime is Qualified Direct Assault with Less Serious
Physical Injuries.

As to the wife of the judge, the crime is Physical injuries. Whether it is serious, less
serious or slight will depend on the gravity of the result of the physical injuiries inflicted by Z. It
cannot be direct assault because the wife is not a person in authority. Such circumstance is
personal to the judge and cannot be transferred to the wife. Also, the wife is not an agent of
the person in authority because the wife, in the attack of her husband by Z, did not come to aid
her husband.

b. Yes. The answer would be the same. The crime is still qualified direct assault with less serious
physical injuries. However, the reasoning in this case would be different. Direct assault is
committed in the case at bar because Z attacked the judge by reason of the performance of the
function or duty of the X when the latter was still a lawyer and he prosecuted Z. In this case,
when X was still a lawyer, he was an agent of the court because under the law he is an officer of
the court who has the duty to preserve law, peace and order. Therefore, the attack made by Z
to X is by reason of the official performance of duty of an agent of a person in authority.

8. No. X cannot be criminally liable because of the territoriality rule. In this rule, it states that
the Philippine court has no jurisdiction over the crimes committed by Filipinos in a foreign soil
subject to the exception of the extraterritoriality application. Among the crimes which has
extraterritorial application are crimes against national security and law of nations. However, in
the case at bar, the crime committed by X was conspiracy to commit rebellion. Such crime has
no extraterritoriality application because the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion is a crime
against public order and not a crime against national security and law of nations.

9. As to Judge Y, he committed the crime of indirect bribery. Since there is no agreement to do

or not to do a function-related act, Judge Y who accepted the gift is liable only for indirect
bribery. Indirect bribery is committed by a public officer who shall accept gifts offered to him by
reason of his office. In this case, Judge Y accepted a gift from a plaintiff who is a party in a case
before him. It is evident that the reason why he was given a gift is because of his office although
there are no specific requests to side with the plaintiff.

As to X, he is liable for corruption of public officer. It is committed by any person who shall give
gifts to a public officer who commits indirect bribery. By reason of the acceptance of the gift by
Judge Y, he committed indirect bribery. Therefore, in the case at bar, X is liable for
consummated corruption of public officer.

10. Yes. X, as the father of the minor daughter Y, who is still living with him can invoke Art. 247
of the Revised Penal Code which will exempt him from any criminal liability since the crime is
death under exceptional circumstances. The requisites of this Article are the following: First,
that the parent surprises his daughter which are under 18 years old and living with them in the
act of sex and the former kills or inflicts injury in the act or immediately thereafter. In the case
at bar, X, the father surprises his 17 years old daughter who is living with him, in the act of
having sex with Z and thereafter killed Z.

11.a. Under the law, the persons in authority are those persons vested with jurisdictions like
Barangay Chairman, Lupon Tagapamayapa, Mayors, Judges, Governors and Chiefs of Police.
Also, for purposes of applying direct assault, teachers and professors in the schools and lawyers
are persons in authority. However, not all persons in authority are public officers since there
are private school teachers and professors who are persons in authority and yet they are not
within the governmental framework of the Republic of the Philippines. Moreover, not all public
officers are persons in authority because public officers, under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, include all employees of the government from the bottom to the top post.
Therefore, even a barangay clerk is a public officer and yet he is not a person in authority
because he is not vested with jurisdiction.

b. Yes. There can be falsification without a genuine original document since its simulation is
already contemplated as falsification. The requirement of falsification on a genuine original
document is only required in paragraph 6, 7 and 8 of Article 171.